Talk:Internal Chronology
Nice, but I'm not totally sure what all the abbreviations mean. -Acacia Onna Stik 09:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC) It's not that important; the goal would be to eliminate them anyway. MC = Met Castle, KR = Klaus Returns, VD = Vienna destroyed .... I just picked initials from important words in the description of the event they're associated with (+0). - Zarchne 11:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC) Got it. As for more stylistic things- do you think it's really worth having separate entries for events separated by only one day? Possibly there could be sublists if a lot of things happened close together. And should there be entries at all for events with no date even by reference to other events? ZR is the only one like that, that I can see; there isn't even any way to be sure whether it happened in between the events it's listed between. Now that I look, we do , though! ~goes and adds~ - Acacia Onna Stik 20:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC) Suggestions: Use a borderless table for formatting. Use more plain English, not acronyms. I like the idea of using the destruction of Castle Heterodyne as Year Zero. (After Klaus takes over, it becomes AW -- Anno Wulfenbachia? Ha ha. :P) --mnenyver 05:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Both and say Klaus returned "a few years" after he disappeared. Given that he dissappeared 3.36 years before The Other destroyed the castle, and came back after The Other and Barry and Bill disappeared, "a few" must be at least 5 years. But my understanding of "a few" means it can't be too much more than that? It sounds like Klaus just missed his ex Lucrezia, maybe by only a few months. Does anyone ever describe the amount of time between the Boys' disappearance, and Klaus' return? xxxx I think the creation of the muses was longer ago. The real Rembrandt van Rijn died in 1669, and Agatha says the muses are over 200 years old. That, incidentally, makes the story more likely to take place in 1892/93 than in 1992/93, otherwise, since the muses would have to be 323/324 years old at least, she would probably have said "over 300 years old". Besides, I would expect them to have been created a little while at least before the demise of the Storm King, to give them some time to become famous before everything falls apart. I also think that it is ´93 currently; a few times it is mentioned in Vol.4 and 5 that it is a bit early in the year to cross the mountains - perhaps February or March, then? Agatha says she is 18 years old, but if it is early in the year, it is quite possible that her 19th birthday is later that year. Then, I am not so sure Lucrezia was pregnant enough to show... if she had been, would Carson von Mekkhan (or the Castle, for that matter) have been so surprised that there is another child besides the boy? Lucrezia is visibly pregnant when she arrives at the Geisterworld, but that would not necessarily have been immediately after the attack. -Sir Chaos 22:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC) : I think the basis for believing Lucrezia arrived just after the attack is that she was frantic when she arrived. If there was a long delay, why was she frantic? Argadi 22:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC) ::Changed Lucrezia's conception date per Sir Chaos's good insight. Lucrezia being in 'great distress' is easy to explain—it would have been during the Other war and while she was 'kidnapped'. But, if she didn't gate directly from Castle Heterodyne to the Geisterworld, then the gate-machine she used to get to the Geisterworld wasn't something in her CH lab that the attack hid. That will complicate our speculations in an interesting way. ::Made a note on Van Rijn's date, but we can't really move it until we have something concrete. ::Some entries have multiple events. I did this in two cases: (a) for all events on a single day of the main narrative and (b) when two related events weren't separated by any intervening event. This is done solely to reduce clutter. ::I have tried to be sparing with events in the main narrative so that the timeline doesn't grow out of control. I have tried to limit it to deaths, battles, hooks to open questions, and the like, plus a few things that had very clear time references. --DryBrook 23:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Speculation I feel this document is starting to edge more into the realm of speculation rather than strictly what we know from the comic, but I'm not sure what to do about it. Some of the early historical dates are pretty specific. I understand that fans are very good at making deductions (and leaping to conclusions) from what we find on the printed page, but the specificity of some entries just doesn't fit with what we know about how the authors write. I'm sure they have notes, but I doubt they've outlined things to the extent which we've written them here. --mnenyver 23:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC) :I think that's a fair assessment. I can identify a few topics on which a more skeptical view could be taken: who the Other is, Agatha's birth, details of Jagertroth, how Othar arrived in Castle Wulfenbach, etc. To be sure, some of the other facts on the timeline are the grist from which speculation is ground, but so long as the timeline sticks to the facts (as the characters tell them), I think it will serve to assist both pro and con. For instance, the timeline should say when Klaus was gone, but not where he was (until Klaus tells us). :Of course there is some guesswork in placing any event of uncertain date relative to others, but that's the function of a timeline and all those uncertainties are clearly labeled here. We could certainly eliminate the practice of assigning the next year/month/day to events that are known to be in sequence. The result, however, would be a lot of notations like, "(+19 years, 8 days, a few days, a few weeks, and 3 more days)". Not too appealing. Alternatively, we could rely on more reference points (the Attack, start of narrative, Zumzum, Sturmhalten) to account for the discontinuities. :I'd be glad to implement the group's consensus, but this is a wiki, so no one needs my consent to have at it. --DryBrook 02:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC) ::Revised page to take a skeptical view of the topics above. Replaced best-guess dates with ranges (based on what events it must be between). Attempted to stick to the almost certainly true facts, avoided drawing any conclusions. I'll leave it alone for a while and see what people think. --DryBrook 18:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC) :::I think the changes work! Thank you so much for doing this. Simple enough solution. :) --mnenyver 16:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC) Dates A few thoughts: # Up front, I’ll reiterate that my understanding is that unresolvable contradictions will be consciously inserted into the “canon”. That is, I expect to see not just increasing misdirection (as when even from the reader's point of view it appears that Agatha rather than Olga has been killed), but the availability of alternative contradictory interpretations which are both necessary to interpret some facet of the plot; for instance, it could turn out necessarily true that Omar was a revenant and that possessing the locket would have killed him. I will be slightly disappointed if quasi-Gödelian (not to suggest Epimenides) problems do not appear. # Although method #3 has merit, in the cases we have dates, (at least years), I think these should be emphasized a bit more, perhaps in their own column. Also there are one or more references to the time of year (which pass will be open this early) or activities (“mushrooming” — use as a euphemism notwithstanding) which are more likely to occur at certain times which are worth mentioning. # Although it’s probably too much work, I think it could be cool if this page were written in terms of a template into which series of hypothetical dates could be specified as parameters. So that along with the minimum-speculation version, various /Mad versions would be automatically updated. I guess all of this comes down to a desire to see more actual dates, although I know to a large extent they can't be included here (which is why I already started the /Mad pages for this a couple of weeks ago) and an invitation for others to make up their own favorite series of hypotheses. ⚙Zarchne 21:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC) : I like the ideas. It seems that two new columns would be appropriate: :* An "actual date" column (column 1 or 2). While we have fixed years for a few events, other events we have ranges. Maybe put the actual years (e.g., 1677) in bold, and for the "year 0, day 0" row we have "1_74 or 1_75" (with the _ being used for the general century issue). :* An "other date notes" column for "spring" (column 3). I actuary can't think of much for this column, but once the column exists it will likely encourage people to look for more clues of that type. When are in season? (Joking aside, that page does have a reference to "first of the season" onions.) : Argadi 22:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC) ::First, thanks to all for your kind reception of the new material. It was kind of a slog. Frankly, I don't think the nature of GG will ever permit dates to be nailed down with any precision, but it's instructive to try to get all the plot threads laid out together for observation. ::I understand the motivation behind additional columns, but my sense is that they will be mostly empty. We only have 3 and a half hard dates (1042, 1298, 1677, and 1_72). We could probably incorporate any other-date-notes into the descriptive text column. Still, it couldn't hurt to try adding columns. ::A suggestion: The historical date entries could be greatly simplified by adopting the assumption that 1_72=1872, with a note that this is subject to future correction. Or 1972, but picking one or the other would help. (Entries for current year dates would continue to reference "+X weeks", of course.) I didn't take that major step because it seemed to be too big an edit to make without prior discussion. ::I think the key with the speculative theories is for the timeline not to say things like "Omar died because of Agatha's command", but rather to simply list Agatha's scream on one day and Omar's death on another so folks can debate cause and effect. (Actually, the timeline should probably note that Omar had that locket when he died.) Similarly for issues like (a) does d'Omas = Gilded Duke or (b) are all instances of the Eternal Lady = Lucrezia = The Other or © was Klaus in Skifander or (d) did Rovainen activate the hive engine because of Agatha's speech. ::As to contradictions, one of the functions of a timeline is to point out to us when multiple perspectives on an event are incompatible. Finding contradictions is even more fun than finding coincidences. --DryBrook 23:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC) Choice for the year I'm thinking about adding the actual date column. I mentioned using "1_74 or 1_75" (with the _ being used for the general century issue) above, but right now I think it would be easier to read the page if the date was instead "1874* or 1875*" with the "*" indicating "may be 100 years later". The reason I like the "*" over the "_" is that the "_" only works well for events near the time of the story, but the "*" can also handle items like Maxim's birth. I don't want to add more speculation, but we do have the years for some events, and I think years for all would make understanding the page easier in some places. Anyone have a strong opinion about these two mechanism (or think I shouldn't work on the column)? Should I use 187x or 197x? Argadi 18:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC) :FWIW, I like the "1874*" format. It looks great. Plus, having a "*" on just certain entries indicates which dates are affected by that issue and which aren't. --DryBrook 20:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Raising a point on one date (+8 years) Gil constructs Zoing. Klaus hides Gil's spark. Gil attends Castle Wulfenbach school incognito. This needs more wiggle room - Gil was 8 when he built Zoing, but everything we've got suggests he's roughly two years older than Agatha. Therefore, Zoing was built more like +5 - +7 after the Castle attack. It's not a big deal, but it kinda stuck out for me. Corgi 19:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC) : I changed it. The date also didn't match the dates given for Gil's birth. The far end of the range makes Gil young at the start of the story, but he is someone who created a working clank at age 8. Argadi 11:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Dates for Castle Heteroydne Where is the earlier date for Faustus Heterodyne's work with the Castle coming from? I thought that *was* the "major change" that happened in 1677. Have I missed something? -Evaneyreddeman 21:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC) : I also suspect 1677 is the date for Faustus's work, but do we have any proof? Argadi 00:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC) ::The date range is based on Faustus doing his upgrade some time between (a) when CH was first built (-831 years) and (b) when CH underwent the so-called 'major change.' I find it very likely that Faustus's upgrade was the 1677 event, but there's no canonical linkage of those two things that I know of, so far. --DryBrook 20:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Dates for Heteroydne Boys adventuring The IC currently says the Heteroydne Boys started adventuring 20 years before the castle attack, 1852 (or 1952). What is the source for this date? The Secret Blueprints says they adventured for 23 years before the Other appeared. :That '20 year' date was in the table before I began working with it. I could never find a citation to support it or debunk it. I let it stand because I was reluctant to delete the work of other users without need. I suggest replacing it with '23 years' (though, technically, this timeline doesn't accept the SB as a canon source. --DryBrook 20:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Date for destruction of Geister gateway Please see my forum entry on this subject - currently the chronology has all these events around the Holy Child and the gateway destruction a year after the Castle attack, but comparing the two memories matches up far too well. However, I wasn't sure how to tackle editing all that together, especially if anyone might not think it's sufficient proof yet. KB was a little over a year old when he was killed; therefore Lucrezia could have been any stage of pregnant at the time she disappeared. -- Corgi 08:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC) Klaus Wulfenbach's personal timeline I'm curious, DryBrook - why did you move Klaus's becoming a construct back to after the Adventuring started? I'm of the school of thought that said his parents put him back together, not the Boys, so it would have been a domestic accident, not something out in the field. Either is equally possible/plausible at this point, of course, but putting it before seems more inclusive of both theories to me. What say you? -- Corgi 16:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC) :I agree with Corgi -- parents seem more likely to me. (Is there a reason we think this?) At any rate, we have no data on how or when Klaus became a construct. I think it should be omitted from the timeline, since it doesn't seem to pertain to any other events. --m 03:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC) :: Tangent: More of a Secret Blueprints intuition than anything properly scientific, I fear. Blast that the 'Young Klaus' sketch doesn't roll his sleeves up high enough to be really useful, canonical or no. To explain a little better, there's something about his complete non-emphasis on his physical state that says to me that not only has he had a long time to adapt to it, but the elder Wulfenbachs (apparently being the Utter Mensches I think Klaus's and Gil's personalities imply) would have reinforced his normality if he had been reassembled as a fairly young man. (The more we go along, the more I want to see their generation as well.) Also, if the Wulfenbachs are known for their outsized machinery, it implies tenatively that it was the Baronin who did the biologicals instead of the hardware, since she married in. If Punch and Judy are the Boys' early construct work (and obviously never fixed up later), Klaus wouldn't have turned out so well if they'd done his repairs instead. :: And this has gone from a tangent to a full-out escape orbit, I'm sorry. -- Corgi 08:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC) :::I suppose that the "becomes a construct" event could have happened before Klaus was adventuring. (We know that it happened, at the latest, by the time Lucrezia exiled him.) If so, you'll need to change the start date. I'd moved "becomes a construct" to be next to the event ("begins adventuring") that was the source of the start date. --DryBrook 14:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC) :::: Thing is, 20/23 years before KB's death is 1850ish, and if they started up when they were teenagers - which is where I got the 1830s ballpark from - the timeframe is about the same. My completely unscientific impression is that Klaus and his theoretical brothers were probably mostly grown when the theoretical accident happened and Klaus got himself rebuilt. I can't really see construct science allowing much for normal human growth. -- Corgi 19:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC) :::I've always assumed that few, if any, of Klaus's ancestors were in Klaus's class as a spark. Otherwise, wouldn't Wulfenbach be a much greater house? Klaus reminds me of Tywin Lannister (by George R.R. Martin), except that Tywin's heart was truly rotten. --DryBrook 14:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC) :::: No, he's pretty much a culmination, but that streak of sanity Klaus shared with Gil might have let a line of fairly substantial Sparks keep their heads down safely through multiple generations. I had to look up Lannister, but I can see what you mean there, too. -- Corgi 19:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Von Pinn's History I suggest that panel three of provides a date for Von Pinn's King giving her her purpose. Her creation would be some time before that. (Really, the "200 years" references are probably just round numbers that place the 'Storm King' events in the same neighborhood. We don't have enough data yet to separate Von Pinn's birthday from the date of her King's orders or her creator's orders. And we may never need to.) --DryBrook 18:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC) : Feel free to make the words a little vaguer. My last edit (to your words) was made because I thought the previous wording implied that the creation and purpose came at the same time (which we both agree isn't proven or even implied by the current information). Argadi 13:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC) ::Vaguer is good. I tried to remove any hint as to the relative timing of the events listed. (We can become vaguer still, if we're willing to be wordier, but I don't think we need to.) --16:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC) The Mad Social Scientist's calendar Is a very nice calendar. Its use by him is bogus, as is his excuse. When you don't want to do something one excuse is a good as another. More authoritative sources (if you don't believe me you can take it up with Von Pinn) place the start of the story in the sign of Pisces. (Feb-Mar). Agatha traveled for through three full moons to get to Mechanicsburg and we have presently been in the castle for a Tuesday plus a day or two more. You can do the math or look at the Great Pumpkin Conjecture for the reasoning. More on this here--Rej ¤¤? : Von Pinn has not claimed that the story began in the sign of Pisces. Her watch bears the Mongfish symbol, which happens to resemble the astrological sign of Pisces, no matter what time of the year it is, despite her effort to deface it. : But the excuse of course is bogus. Perhaps it is meant to be hilariously bogus, as it could well be that the feast of St. Bungi is in fact celebrated by risky vertical travel... the famous practice of Bungi-Jumping. --Quadibloc 01:09, October 27, 2009 (UTC) :: hmmm. You might be right. On what authority do you arrive at your conclusion? I sort of like mine because the circus travel seems to be early spring with only a few passes passable. I was hoping Von Pinn's watch was a confirming clue. Ah well, that's science. ::: I don't argue with the part about the circus travel being in early spring: someone cited explicit dialog confirming that. As for the Mongfish symbol, it's visible in the Dragon from Mars sequence, for example. --Quadibloc 05:21, October 28, 2009 (UTC) :::: Cool. Nice observation. I went back and looked. There is a Pisces symbol on Lucrezia's mechanical fish. So far I see it no where else. It could be a sigil for Mongfish, and I consider doubts to have been raised about my interpretation of Von Pinn's watch. I think further evidence is needed. The timing my assumption made fits fairly nicely. (I suppose we could shift starting times a moon either way.) I just took yet another look at the watch and what you are describing as scratches still look like part of a watch mechanism to me. So my thought, till proven otherwise, is that the watch came with Von Pinn from her origin 200 years ago. If I am wrong, I'm wrong. I will adjust my theory as more of the story is revealed. What does the town of Mechanicsburg do to remember Klaus's Barrys birthday? What about the anniversery of the castles destruction? We will hear of it sooner or later. --Rej ¤¤? 05:16, October 27, 2009 (UTC) :If you look at the costume Agatha wears as Lucrezia when she does Race to the West Pole, she also wears a sigil/brooch with two fishes: . The clank piloted by Lucrezia in Dragon from Mars also has a two-fish symbol: . This makes me think that the two-fish thing is a recognized symbol of the Mongfish family, which would make the watch a much later possession of Von Pinn's. I personally like the "defaced by claws" interpretation, though. -Evaneyreddeman 18:02, January 22, 2010 (UTC) The other fun thing to note about the date is that in present times Sept. 19th is considered "Talk like a pirate day" --Rej ¤¤? 17:23, October 26, 2009 (UTC) : It is true that if he circles the Feast of St. Bungi on the calendar, it indicates the day is important to him, and strengthens his argument. But that might be a future date circled for another reason, and today's date might be an earlier date he is pointing to. : And, of course, besides St. Bungi possibly being exactly the wrong saint, the kind of calendar is the wrong kind of calendar for a religious person! --Quadibloc 01:12, October 27, 2009 (UTC) Time of year timings in article I've been doing a lot of research around the height of the tide, phase of the moon timings of GG. From that research the conclusions put into this article seem very off. Most of my thinking is based around the Great Pumpkin conjecture. The reason day zero did not happen in February is that Bill and Barry were out on a mission that involved Giant Vegetables according to Carson. This implies harvest season which February definitely is not. The other suggestion I have is to use the #time: template to represent times. The string to time function it is based on is very flexible. Between the two we have a lot of leeway in terms of both input and output formating for times and dates. --Rej ¤¤? 18:24, January 22, 2010 (UTC) : I didn't mean to imply that the event happened in February, only that the time range was from February to February. : Klaus Barry Heterodyne is born in 1872 (or 1972, but I'm ignoring that). If he was born 1 January the castle is attacked in February 1873, if he was born 31 December the attack is in February 1874. In any case, it's in that range. Can you think of a clearer way of expressing the range (without using too much space)? : I've read your Great Pumpkin conjecture with interest. It fits together well, but the harvest implication is not certain. Plants that become freeze-resistant could keep growing and attract interest any time of the year. Argadi 19:50, January 22, 2010 (UTC) I fully agree that the "Saturday 19, September 1896" entry is bogus and should be removed. Other than that, and the misunderstanding of the way I entered the date ranges, are you aware of any faulty reasoning or assumptions in the article? Argadi 19:53, January 22, 2010 (UTC) Ah, I didn't realize it was a range. One of the reasons for the box is that I think canon and the word of god allow us to narrow the times down by making tighter assumptions. Gaslamp fantasies take place in the Victorian era according to so we can choose 1892. That would simplify things. Its improbable, but the Foglio's might have meant 1972. If we ever find that out for sure, well this is a wiki. It can always be updated. We also now know the order of things a little more. Vlad (and therefore Jaegers) came after Knife but before Egregious who came with the first destruction of the castle. So thats all well before 1298. Faustus is thick in the events of the (original) Storm King era which was circa 200 years before the present story. The current story starts in late winter/ early spring. It has gone on for less than a season. Agatha has not had a birthday in that time. That narrows possibilities even more. Some of what I've done needs to be reflected here. Not all because my assumptions are bolder that strict canon allows. So since I was not ready to do it yet the box is a good reminder we need to revise this piece in light of current knowledge. --Rej ¤¤? 01:01, January 23, 2010 (UTC) : I don't think we should go to far with extra assumptions. For example, Agatha's life has been seriously disrupted, she isn't staying with her family, her activities have been event driven and not based on a calendar, and she hasn't seen the people who have been celebrating her birthdays. It wouldn't surprise me he a birthday got overlooked. : I don't object to the cleanup tag, but what needs to be done to remove the "false assumptions" statement? I (and others before me) worked hard to make safe assumptions and if you think anything (other than the last row) is incorrect or based on a false assumption I would like to see it cleaned up. Argadi 20:08, January 24, 2010 (UTC) :: Okay, if the last row is cleaned, and the ranges are clearly ranges (footnoted and/or just stated as between Feb 1893-Feb 1894 etc. Then it will not appear misleading to me. So we could leave the box up and edit the reason to reflect incompleteness and update needed. When you need an excuse for something, generally any one will do. Thanks for your energy and concern here. ::I need to do more on my stuff to get it ready for main page. The great amount that needs to be done has discouraged me from making small improvements here. Maybe I should just do that by way of warming up? --Rej ¤¤? 00:22, January 25, 2010 (UTC) Okay I did what I thought needed to be done most. Removed the offending misrepresentation. Broke the table apart into time periods. Revised assumptions by putting references to alternatives (i.e. 1972) into the foot notes. Also noted the full moons in footnotes too. That's as far as I could think to take this at the moment. If anyone else wish to make a pass over this, you have my blessings. If you do a good job, you'll have my gratitude as well. Cheers --Rej ¤¤? 02:24, January 25, 2010 (UTC) The moon is meaningless. It's just artistic license. Let's start with the current podcast. Kaja. laughingly, describes fans using "forensic astronomy" to set dates and times. She also says people should just "suspend disbelief and enjoy the story". There is proof that the "phases of the moon" are irrelivant to time of the month. First all but one moon depicted is full. Why not use phases IF you are providing clues as to day of month? Volume 13, page 105, third panel - There is a full moon on the horizon. This is to tell us it is near dawn, as we shall see. Volume 13, page 129 - It is Dawn! Note that the Skywyrm's shadow would be for midday (the sun overhead). This is for drama, it doesn't match reality. The sun is not yet over the horizon and is not casting shadows from overhead. Act 2, Volume 1 page 13 - On board Castle Wulfenbach, a WANING ''moon is seen in the background. This is the Northern Hemisphere, it can only be a waning moon. That puts us just over three full weeks after Agatha's breakout. ''BUT... Act 2, volume 1, page 27 - Agatha: "We just came through a few days ago." Not a few weeks, a few days. The moon is not there as a clue, it's just esthetically pleasing in Phil point of view. I think it's nice that people get so involved in the story. But this is finding "clues" that don't exist. The authors never put them there. AndyAB99 (talk) 22:34, December 5, 2014 (UTC) Chrono notes from the VotC novel I'm using an e-dition of the book, and therefore have no reliable pagemarkers; given that I have no idea if the 'location' designations would be the same for everyone, I can only go by chapters and let interested parties fish around from there. Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 * 437215353 seconds - no change from the graphical version. * Gil observes the farm-crops outside of the walls are in 'full summer growth', suggesting June/July. Chapter 4 * father ran off a month after she was born * After the disastrous sacking of the Vatican by the Anabaptist Alchemical Army in 1566, the Papal Court was scattered. to the seven Papacies Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 7 * 'The smooth concrete walkways that wound through the Gardens of Mechanicsburg’s Great Hospital were designed for the comfort of perambulating patients. Tonight, instead of patients, they were thronged with Wulfenbach military forces...' - fairly clear indications of one full solar cycle of exciting Mechanicsburg adventures. Chapter 8 Chapter 9 * “Mechanicsburg: A thousand years old and crazy to the bone.” Another note elsewhere said 'almost a thousand', so if the current year is 189x, a founding date of around 1000 AD/CE seems a fair approximate. * 'Empire records show that the battle against the Black Mist Raiders, which military historians have called “The most dangerous game of chess in history,” took over three years...' Chapter 10 Chapter 11 I'll add onto this with further review. Feel free to do the same. Corgi (talk) 20:17, February 6, 2015 (UTC)